Presently
pending in this matter are a motion for summary judgment
(Docket Entry 30) of the defendant Dr. Kenneth Mathews
(Mathews) and Southern Health Partners, Inc. (SHP), on the
grounds that the plaintiff cannot establish that Mathews or
SHP were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs; and a motion to dismiss of the defendant Officer Ariel
Carrillo (Carrillo), on the grounds that the plaintiff's
claim of excessive force against Carrillo is barred by
Tennessee's one year statute of limitations. The
plaintiff failed to file a response to either motion.

The
Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that both
motions be GRANTED and the plaintiff's
claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. The
Magistrate Judge further RECOMMENDS that any
appeal from such a dismissal not be certified in good faith
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).

BACKGROUND

The
District Court reviewed the plaintiff's complaint (Docket
Entry 12). The first part of the complaint alleges that on
April 29, 2015, Officer Carrillo of the Lebanon Police
Department tackled the plaintiff and violently twisted his
arm behind his back and handcuffed him. As a result, the
plaintiff heard a loud snapping sound and the officer stated
to the plaintiff, “You can't outrun me,
n-----.” The plaintiff was transported by ambulance to
a hospital where he was diagnosed with cuts, abrasions, and a
dislocated shoulder. He was sedated and woke up with his arm
and shoulder in a brace. The plaintiff was given pain
medication, told to follow up on treatment, and released. He
alleges that he was on the street for approximately two
months, healing with the brace and taking his medications.

On June
26, 2017, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was
stopped by the police. The plaintiff was arrested for a
violation of probation and for failure to pay child support.
He was taken to the Wilson County Jail. The plaintiff alleges
that he notified the jail of his dislocated shoulder. When he
complained to the female Commissioner at the jail intake, the
plaintiff was told to fill out a sick-call request. He
alleges that his request not to be placed on a top bunk was
ignored. The plaintiff alleges that the Wilson County Jail
doctor (Mathews) told him that his injury was costly and that
there was nothing he could do besides prescribe pain
medications. The plaintiff was given the same response by the
nursing staff and Dr. Mathews for the next eleven months. The
plaintiff alleges that he filed numerous grievances but was
given no relief. He alleges that he continued to experience
pain and that his shoulder healed in the wrong location and
position, and that he could not raise his arm enough to wash
under it or to apply deodorant.

The
plaintiff also made complaints against his state court public
defenders.

The
plaintiff alleges that on January 21, 2018, he was in a fight
with another inmate. He alleges that Officer Neely slammed
him to the ground and handcuffed him, and that an unknown
officer grabbed his leg and slammed his foot into the ground,
causing a toe to break. The plaintiff also alleges that when
he was placed in segregation following the fight, some of his
documents, including legal material, were improperly held.

On
review, the District Judge dismissed the claims against the
jail and the court appointed attorneys (Docket Entry 12). The
District Judge did find that the plaintiff had stated a
potential 1983 claim against Officer Carrillo under both the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Judge also
found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a complaint
against Dr. Mathews, and because he alleged that Dr.
Mathews' action was a result of a policy or custom of
Southern Health Partners (SHP), he also stated a claim for
deliberate indifference against SHP. The District Judge
dismissed all other claims, leaving for further proceedings
the plaintiff's excessive force claims against Officer
Corrillo and his Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Mathews
and SHP for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.

After
some delay in securing service of process on the three
remaining defendants, a scheduling order was entered in this
matter on September 17, 2018 (Docket Entry 28). The plaintiff
was advised that he could take discovery and how to do it.
The plaintiff was specifically advised of the time frame for
responding to dispositive motions and advised in bold print
that if dispositive motions were filed before the deadline,
the deadlines for filing responses and replies would be
advanced accordingly.

On
September 21, 2018, Dr. Mathews and SHP filed their motion
for summary judgment, supported by a memorandum of law, a
declaration by Dr. Mathews, and a statement of uncontested
facts (Docket Entry 30). On October 1, 2018, the plaintiff
filed a letter advising the court that he had been released
from custody and requested some additional time to respond to
the motion for summary judgment and to secure the services of
an attorney (Docket Entry 31). Based on his letter, which the
Court treated as a motion for additional time, the plaintiff
was given until December 17, 2018, to respond to the pending
motion for summary judgment, and was cautioned that failure
to respond to the motion before the deadline could result in
the dismissal of his case (Docket Entry 34). The plaintiff
was further advised that if he secured the services of an
attorney, the attorney could request additional time. He was
also advised that discovery had not closed and he could
continue to seek discovery.

Service
was finally obtained on Officer Carrillo on October 26, 2018
(Docket Entry 38), and he promptly filed a motion to dismiss
(Docket Entry 42), supported by a memorandum of law.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a copy of an indictment
returned against him for resisting arrest and obstructing
Officer Carrillo from affecting his arrest by use of force
against the officer (Docket Entry 44, Page ID 200). Contained
with this filing by the plaintiff is an incident report
concerning the matter (Docket Entry 44, Page ID 205-208). It
appears from this pleading that the criminal case was
subsequently dismissed as part of a plea of guilty to an
unrelated charge (Docket Entry 44, Page ID 209).

In a
statement accompanying this indictment and incident report
(Docket Entry 45), the plaintiff questions the factual basis
of the indictment and incident report. He contends that he
has four or five witnesses that would testify that Officer
Carrillo detained him in with excessive force and that the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.